exactly

Go fish

My thoughts regarding this idea are hard to express in words, although I believe BBWWaaaaaaawwwwrrrrrbbbbbbbssssssssssplarrrbbb comes closest.

Don't worry Oct, it's just a brain fart.

There are boardgames where alliances are unbreakable. Dune/Rex comes to mind. Alliances can change, but the current ones for that round are official/unbreakable.

Whether such a policy is good for Diplomacy is another matter of course.

The point of Diplomacy is literally to lie

No, the point of Diplomacy is to get to 18 centers. Most people are not good enough to do that without lying.

I wasn't aware there were bonus points for doing it without lying?

"Any win is a good win. A great win is a solo achieved with your alliances intact and your agreements kept. An awesome win is when you do all that and annoy Valis at the same time"
-Octavious

Yes... but the thing you must keep firmly in mind, Valis, is that when I said that I was lying. Except for the last bit, of course.

Winning Diplomacy without lying is a lot like joining the mile high club. At first glance it seems rather impressive and a grand target to aim for, but when you think about it in detail you realise it's all a bit unpleasent and thoroughly unhygienic.

I suppose I never lied in my gunboat solos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Land

@ejbo527: "Many people who play web diplomacy cheat.. or lie"

You're doing it wrong.

Lying is a basic part of the game. It's not "cheating".

If you never lie, you're not playing the game in the spirit in which it was created.

I think it could make for an amusing game variant. It would of course all be on the honor system, but to build a game where every player is expected speak only statements that are true...that could be interesting. You'd have to work harder to mislead other players, and you'd have to expect that other players are trying to do the same to you.

Maybe the time is right to revive the ever popular Pacifist Variant...

sounds like a cheating allegation, ejb..

Yes, the pacifism variant is great fun, it is similar in thought to gunboat, except instead of not being able to talk you're not allowed move your units... Very challenging!

"You'd have to work harder to mislead other players, and you'd have to expect that other players are trying to do the same to you."

Isn't that what we already do?

Implicit in the game is deciding who to trust.

@ If you never lie, you're not playing the game in the spirit in which it was created.

This is probably correct but one needs to balance their truths and lies. Certainly the game says its a game of "lies deceit and treachery" but that doesn't mean you can't play the game at a high level unless you lie. I think what cb6000 said above is very true though, "Implicit in the game is deciding who to trust".

This could be a very interesting variant. Obviously the original spirit is to know whom to trust, but this could also be fun. Let's explore the idea, instead of bashing it because its unorthodox.
Alliances could represent the political nature of war. Maybe one country would be a valuable ally, but they practice slavery, and you could never sell an alliance to your people. Maybe one guy would be really easy to conquer, but your nations rely on mutual trade for survival.

Questions about alliances

Would they be public, so everyone knows who's aligned, or private, forcing people to guess based on actions, not knowing where intentions lie (back to trust issues)

Would alliances be permanent, or could you agree to ally only for one turn, or a set number of years, or a predefined condition?

Could I suggest we dissolve our alliance, and if we both sign the divorce contract, duke it out?

Types of alliances

Pure alliance: we're playing teams now, I win if you reach 18, I lose if you die. And vice versa

Non -aggression : I will not invade, nor support the invasion of your territories.
(I can choose not to support you, allowing someone else to invade)

This turn: can agree upon plans for next turn, including bouncing on borders, to simulate violence

Just a few thoughts. I feel like these rules would be hard to program, and would require players to comply voluntarily. Which I guess is the point of the thread. I'd be interested in trying out a game like this.

I would also be interested in this game